Have you ever stopped to think that almost every question is superceded by a more important question? Not to say a more critical question, or a question worth finding the answer to more. But a question that must be asked, and answered, before you’ll ever find a meaningful answer to the question at hand. Science is probably the best example of this. I can’t think of a great example off the top of my head, but just think about the way scientists have gotten off onto so many tangents throughout the centuries. How many alchemists spent an entire lifetime trying to make gold in a lab? True, they weren’t all obsessed with making gold, but they were obsessed with the thoughts of making things by mixing things. If only they would have known something about protons and electrons. If only they would have asked the proper question, and attempted to answer it. Who’s to say that modern scientists aren’t the equivalent of the alchemists of old? It’s true that we’re light years ahead of scientists from even a few centuries ago. But we’re no more confident in our abilities, or proud of our achievements than the old alchemists were. So who’s to say that we’re not on a wild goose chase now? Isn’t it possible that we’re not seeing the forest for the trees? I'll just point out that it's happened before. I think there are more important questions out there. And I believe with a doubt that the ultimate question has never been asked. The ‘ultimate question’ being the question to end all questions—the question that will provide the means to answer all other questions. So what is the ultimate question? What question is the mother of all questions? I don’t know any more than anyone else, but there’s a question at the very core of my curiosity, and if I had to venture a guess I’d say the ultimate question is: Why is there not nothing? Please excuse the double negative, because it’s the only way to properly ask the question… the question being when it came down to there being something or nothing, why was it decided there would be something, and not nothing? In referring to ‘something’ I’m not referring to matter, or time, or energy. I’m not talking about the blob of whatever you want to call it, which supposedly fueled the Big Bang. I’m talking about ‘something’… something in its simplest form—the opposite of nothing. It’s interesting to think about ‘nothing’. ‘Nothing’ is a relative term to us. We look inside of a box and say that nothing is inside of it, when there are nearly countless air molecules—all worthy of being called something. We look out at the stars and talk about the countless miles of nothingness between ourselves and them, when there is a measurable distance of space between the stars and us. Space is something, isn't it? Everywhere you look there’s something. And every thought you have is about something. You can’t have a thought about nothing, because what would you think about? You must think about something in order to think—there’s no way around that. Just try to imagine true ‘nothingness’ for a second (I call it ‘absolute nothingness’). Think of an existence where there is absolutely nothing to give a name to—wait, there’s no such thing. You can’t imagine absolute nothingness—it’s impossible. My point is that ‘something’ defines us, and everything we know. But you know, there didn’t have to be something. I’m guessing there just as easily could have been nothing. Anyways, that’s what I think the ultimate question is: why was there not nothing? I’m curious to hear what you think the ultimate question is.